revisiting ayatollah khomeini’s doctrine of wilayat al

77Vol. XLIV 2009

− − − −Revisiting Ayatollah Khomeini’s Doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqıh (Velayat-e Faqıh)

* Associate Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Revisiting Ayatollah Khomeini’s Doctrine of− − − −Wilayat al-Faqıh (Velayat-e Faqıh)

Yasuyuki MATSUNAGA*

Much has been written about Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi-Khomeini’s− −(1902-1989) doctrine of wilayat al-faqıh, or the mandate of the

jurisprudent. In this article, I will focus on the following two questions:

how consistent was he in espousing the doctrine, and what was his major

addition to the doctrine? After reviewing his educational and scholarly

background, I will first reconstruct constituent components of the doctrine

and revisit his relevant writings and statements to determine how

consistent his views were over his long academic and political career.−Drawing on the existing studies on the divergent doctrines of wilayat al-

−faqıh, I will also identify one possible innovation Ayatollah Khomeini

likely added to the doctrine. My examination of his 1944 tract, Kashf al-−asrar, shows that Khomeini as a young seminary teacher had already

− − − −believed in wilayat al-faqıh al-siyasıyah, or the divine mandate of the− −jurisprudent to rule. This suggests that his views on wilayat al-faqıh most

likely had solidified much earlier than the existing Western studies

surmised and that they remained rather consistent throughout his scholarly

and political career. The results will help better discuss various

implications of the doctrine as political theory and also in the context of

actual political developments in Iran over the last fifty some years.

Keywords: − − − −A

−Khomeini, wilayah (velayat), faqıh, Kashf al-asrar, hukumah

A

−(hokumat)

Introduction

Much has been written about Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi-Khomeini’s− − − −(1320-1409 A.H./1902-1989) doctrine of wilayat al-faqıh (velayat-e faqıh), or

the mandate of the jurisprudent. Of the various aspects of the doctrine, the issue

of proofs (adillah) has attracted a great deal of attention both inside and outside

Iran.1 This has not been unexpected, as Ayatollah Khomeini himself indicated as

early as in 1944:

ORIENT78

−The mandate of the jurisprudent (velayat-e mojtahed) has been an

issue and discussed from day one among the jurisprudents themselves,−both in terms of having or not having such a mandate (as.l-e dashtan-e

− −velayat va na-dashtan) and in terms of the extent of his mandate and

A

− − − − −the scope of his state (hodud-e velayat va damaneh-ye hokumat-e u).− −And this is a part of applied jurisprudence (az foru‘-e feqhıyeh) over

which the both sides [of the contention] have brought proofs that are,

A

−at the end of the day, hadıths of the Prophet and the Imam [sic].

(Khomeini [1944], 185)2

In this article, I will instead focus on the following two questions: how

consistent was he in espousing the doctrine, and what was his major addition to

the doctrine? Efforts have been made to place his doctrine of the mandate of the

jurisprudent in historical perspective (see, for example, Calder 1982; Rose 1983;

Sahebi 1990; and Mazinani 1998). However, many scholars outside Iran have

focused on his pre-1979 writings, thereby neglecting important pronouncements

that Ayatollah Khomeini made in the post-revolutionary period. Furthermore,

some have argued, both inside and outside Iran, that his expressed views on the

temporal political authorities underwent significant changes, while others have

insisted to the contrary. In the following, after reviewing his educational and

scholarly background, I will first reconstruct various constituent components of

the doctrine and then revisit his relevant writings and statements so as to

determine how consistent his views were over his long academic and political

career. Drawing on some of the existing studies on the divergent doctrines of− − − −wilayat al-faqıh (velayat-e faqıh), I will also identify one possible innovation

Ayatollah Khomeini likely added to the doctrine. The results will enable us to

better discuss various implications of the doctrine as political theory and also in

the context of actual political developments in Iran over the last fifty some

years.

I. The Educational and Scholarly Background of Ayatollah Khomeini

Ruhollah Khomeini was born on 20 Jumada al-Akhirah 1320 A.H.

(corresponding to 1 Mehr 1381 A.H.S. and 24 September 1902), in the town of

Khomein, some 160 kilometers to the southwest of Qom in central Iran, as the

third and youngest son of Seyyed Mostafa (1855-1903).3 As his father, a−mujtahid trained in ‘Atabat in the 1890s by, among others, Mirza Hasan Shirazi

(1230-1312 A.H./1815-95), was killed just several months after his birth,

Ruhollah was brought up by his mother and then his eldest brother, Morteza (b.

79Vol. XLIV 2009


1313 A.H./1895-96, known later as Ayatollah Pasandideh, d. 1417 A.H./1996).

In 1339 A.H./1920-21, he was sent to study in Arak (then Soltanabad-e ‘Eraq)

where Sheikh ‘Abd al-Karim Ha’eri-Yazdi (1276-1355 A.H./1859-1937), a

former student of Mirza Shirazi, had arrived several years earlier and begun

teaching. Khomeini followed Ha’eri-Yazdi to Qom soon after the latter moved to

the shrine city in 1340 A.H./1922 (Rouhani 1977, 26; Rajabi 1998, 115-116). In− −Qom, Khomeini studied sotuh with ‘Ali Yasrebi-Kashani, and then dars-e kharej

with Ha’eri-Yazdi from 1345 A.H./1926-27 to the latter’s death in 1355 A.H/

1937 (Rouhani 1977, 27; Rajabi 1998, 116).4 The other notable teacher of

Khomeini during his student years in Qom was Mirza Mohammad ‘Ali−Shahabadi (d. 1369 A.H./1950), with whom he studied ‘erfan for seven years

from 1347 A.H./1928-29 to 1354 A.H./1935-36 (Ostadi 1990, 143). While−studying with Mirza Shahabadi, Khomeini also started teaching ‘erfan himself in

1347 A.H./1928-29 at age twenty-seven (Rouhani 1977, 38); one of his first

students, Mehdi Ha’eri-Yazdi, younger son of ‘Abd al-Karim Ha’eri-Yazdi,−

A

− − −recounted that he read the entire Asfar, or al-Hikmah al-muta‘alıyah fi al-asfar

al-arba‘ah written by Mulla Sadra (d. 1050 A.H./1640), with Khomeini over a

ten-year period (Hairi-Yazdi 2001, 98).

Upon the death of Sheikh Ha’eri-Yazdi, Khomeini began teaching

jurisprudence in the Qom seminary, which at the time was jointly managed by

three Ayatollahs Shihab al-Din Sadr, Mohammad Hojjat and Mohammad-Taqi

Khonsari. Four years later, Reza Shah was sent into exile and a period of

political and socio-literary openings set in.5 It was during this period and just

before Ayatollah Hosein Borujerdi (1292-1380 A.H./1875-1961) arrived in Qom

in late 1944 to assume the helm of its seminary that Khomeini authored and−published his first political tract, a 334-page book entitled Kashf al-asrar

(Ostadi 1990, 158). After the entry of Borujerdi, Khomeini attended the newly-− −arrived Ayatollah’s osul (us.ul al-fiqh) classes to help establish the latter’s

−marja‘ıyat-e motlaqeh.

At around the same time (1364 A.H./1323 A.H.S./1944-45), Khomeini−began teaching his dars-e kharej classes (Rouhani 1977, 41; Rajabi 1998, 120).

From the mid-1940s until about 1950-51 (1370 A.H./1330 A.H.S.) and again−until about 1957-58 (1377 A.H.), Khomeini twice taught his osul classes and

authored books in this branch of jurisprudence that were later published in− − −Tahdhıb al-us.ul (partially transcribed by Ja‘far Sobhani) and al-Rasa’il (first

published in Qom in 1385 A.H./1965-66) (Ostadi 1990, 154, 159; Va‘ez-−Khorasani 1981, 330-331). Khomeini continued his dars-e kharej classes until

his forced exile in Turkey in November 1964 (this excludes the ten-month

ORIENT80

period following his June 1963 arrest during which time he was placed under−detention in Tehran), while publishing such works as al-Makasib al-

A

−muharramah after the death of Borujerdi. His biographers note that the kharej

classes of Ayatollah Khomeini attracted the largest number of students in the

history of the Qom houzeh, reaching twelve hundred at the end (Rouhani 1977,−42; Algar 1988, 281). His third osul classes also reportedly attracted as many as

five hundred students at the beginning of 1960s (Va‘ez-Khorasani 1981, 331).− −Upon his entry in Najaf in 1965, he resumed dars-e kharej, but not osul

classes. He continued them until he was expelled from Iraq in the fall of 1978

(Forati 2006, 68-69). It was during this period that he completed and published− − −his most important feqh-e estedlalı work, Kitab al-bay‘ (Book of Sale),6 in

which he espoused his doctrine of the mandate of the jurisprudent. Separately

but around the same time in 1391 A.H./1971, he published his 184-page Persian− −tract entitled Hokumat-e Eslamı from his thirteen consecutive lessons in early

− −1970 on velayat-e faqıh.7

− −As for books in feqh-e ‘amalıyeh, while he had written a hashiyeh− −(marginal commentary) on Ayatollah Borujerdi’s Touzıh al-masa’el and, after

−the death of Borujerdi, published it as his own Resaleh in Qom in 1381 A.H./

1961-62, Khomeini wrote another practical jurisprudence work during his exile

A

−in Bursa, Turkey, in 1384 A.H./1965, this time in Arabic and entitling it Tahrır− −al-wasılah (In Qom, he had also written a hashiyeh on Mohammad Kazem

− −Yazdi’s ‘Urwat al-wuthqa and another on Abu al-Hasan Esfahani’s Wasılat al-−najat) (Ostadi 1990, 155-156). In this new work, Khomeini took up issues that

− −he had not discussed in his Resaleh, notably, issues in “al-amr bi al-ma‘ruf wa

al-nahy ‘an al-munkar” (enjoining the good and prohibiting the evil) and “al-−difa‘ ” (defense). Thereafter, the Persian translations of these two sections were

−added in the later editions of his Resaleh (Ostadi 1990, 157; Moin 1999, 137-

138).8

II. − − −The Overview of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Wilayat al-Faqıh (Velayat-e−Faqıh) Doctrine

The doctrine of the mandate of the jurisprudent that Ayatollah Khomeini

espoused by the end of his life can be summarized as follows:

A

−VF1. The divine ordinances (ahkam) of Islam necessarily require the state

A

− −(hukumah) and the divine mandate (wilayah) for their implementation.− − −Without the state and the ruler with the divine mandate (walı al-amr, walı al-

− − − − − −amr [valı-ye amr]), the supremacy of divine law (siyadat al-qanun al-ilahı)

81Vol. XLIV 2009


cannot be maintained; nor is it possible to keep the affairs of Muslims from−being disturbed. These necessities constituted the proof for the Imamat

(Khomeini 1985, 461; Khomeini 1994, 29-31; cf. Khomeini 1985, 497); they

remain forceful during the occultation of the infallible Imam (Khomeini

1985, 464; Khomeini 1994, 39).

A

− − −VF2. The Islamic state (al-hukumah al-Islamıyah) that Islam has brought into

existence is a state based entirely and solely on the divine law (i.e., the divine− −ordinances). The necessary qualification of the ruler (walı) of the Islamic

state comprises (a) the knowledge of the divine ordinances (al-‘ilm bi al-

A

− −ahkam) and (b) the justness (al-‘adalah) as leader of the community and

executor of the ordinances (Khomeini 1985, 461, 464-465; Khomeini 1994,

32-39).

VF3. Since no specific individual is appointed during the occultation, the− −divine mandate (al-wilayah) belongs rightly to the just jurisprudent (al-faqıh

−al-‘adil) in that capacity (and no one else) (Khomeini 1985, 464-465).

VF4. Establishing the Islamic state and forming the basis for the Islamic− − −government, therefore, constitute a collective obligation (al-wajib al-kifa’ı)

− −on the part of the just jurisprudents (al-fuqaha’ al-‘udul); their appointed

status (mans.ib) will not lapse even if they are unable to establish the Islamic

state (Khomeini 1985, 465-466; Khomeini 1994, 42, 44).

VF5. As ruler of the Islamic state, there is no difference between the

jurisprudent, on the one hand, and the Prophet and the Imam, on the other;

the jurisprudent has all that the Prophet and the Imam had for rulership and

A

− −politics (al-hukumah wa al-siyasah) (Khomeini 1985, 466-467, 488, 497; cf.

Khomeini 1994, 40). The ruler with the divine mandate and the Islamic state− −may even suspend certain substantive divine ordinances (ahkam-e far‘ıyeh),

because the state is a branch of the absolute mandate of the Prophet− − − −(sho‘beh’ı az velayat-e motlaqeh-ye rasul Allah) and the mandate of the

− −jurisprudent and his ruling ordinance (hokm-e hokumatı) are among the− − −primary ordinances of Islam (ahkam-e avvalıyeh-ye Eslam) (Khomeini 1990,

170-171, 1749; cf. Khomeini 1985, 483).

VF6. People have the obligation to obey the commands of the ruler with the

divine mandate, be he the Prophet, the Imam, or the jurisprudent (Khomeini

ORIENT82

1985, 467; cf. Khomeini 1994, 40, 81, 91); obeying the commands of the

Prophet and the Imam is obeying God (Khomeini 1985, 477; Khomeini

1994, 75).

III. Critical Discussions−Although related to its principal meaning of “being proximate,” wilayah

−(velayat) as a juridical term signifies “being in charge, to control or govern, and− −to exercise authority” (tasaddı-ye amr, tasallot, seitareh, saltanat and emarat)

(Kadivar 1998b, 21, 45; Khomeini 1994, 40). In English, it has been variously

rendered as authority, guardianship, mandate, governance and rulership (see, for

example, Amir Arjomand 1980; Calder 1982; Enayat 1983; Rose 1983;

Mottahedeh 1995; and Akhavi 1996). In this article, I will settle for mandate, or

divine mandate, so as to highlight the vast discretional authority supposedly− −given to the just jurisprudents (al-fuqaha’ al-‘udul) in accordance with the views

advocated by Ayatollah Khomeini and by Molla Ahmad Naraqi (1185-1245

A.H./1771-1829) before him. As will be noted, what to render—or, for that− −matter, make of—wilayah (velayat) will depend critically on a key assumption

as to what is possible during the occultation of the infallible Imam.

Alternatively, rulership could be a good substitute.− − − −Velayat-e shar‘ı is a part of applied jurisprudence (az foru‘-e feqhı), not a

− −principle of faith nor a pillar of Shi‘ism. Wilayah (velayat), as employed in−Islamic law, is a divine ordinance (hokm-e shar‘ı); it is not an injunctive one

− − −A

−(hokm-e taklıfı), but a declaratory one (hokm-e vaz‘ı [hukm wad‘ı]), that is, an

ordinance that sets up an institution from which a variety of obligations

subsequently flow.10 It was not until the thirteenth century A.H./early nineteenth− −century, however, that jurisprudents started to discuss velayat-e shar‘ı as a topic

− − −of its own (bab) and treat it as a juridical principle (qa‘edeh-ye feqhı) (Kadivar− −1998b, 43-44, 49). Velayat-e shar‘ı possesses the following four aspects: (1) the

− − −grantor of the mandate (ja‘el-e velayat); (2) the holder of the mandate (valı); (3)−the subjects of the mandate (movalla ‘aleih); and (4) the scope of the mandate

−(houzeh-ye velayat) (Kadivar 1998b, 46-47).

1. The consistency question

It is possible to presume that Khomeini’s juridical views had been more or less−solidified by the time he began teaching his dars-e kharej classes in the mid-

1940s. Yet, given his penchant for working through the established workings

within the houzeh systems and seeking a unified clerical voice on sociopolitical

issues of the time, it is not surprising that Khomeini was rather slow to openly

83Vol. XLIV 2009


express his own politico-juridical views. It is, therefore, useful to distinguish

four periods in his lengthy scholarly and political career: (1) the first, or pre-

Borujerdi, period (from 1937 when Ha’eri-Yazdi died till December 1944 when

Borujerdi entered Qom); (2) the second, or Borujerdi- and post-Borujerdi-era

Qom houzeh modarres, period (from December 1944 when Borujerdi assumed

the directorship of the Qom houzeh till March 1961 when Borujerdi died and

also from March 1961 to November 1964 when Khomeini emerged as the most

politically active mujtahid in Qom); (3) the third, or exile, period (from

November 1964 to January 1979 including an important period from November

A1965 to October 1978 when he was a Najaf hawzah mudarris; and (4) the fourth,

or Islamic State, period (from February 1979 till his death in June 1989).

It is generally recognized among those who have studied the writings of

Khomeini that he most clearly presented his mandate of the jurisprudent views,

as noted earlier, during the third period when he was teaching in the Najaf

hawzah. It has also been pointed out by his biographers that Khomeini had, for

some time, refrained from openly revealing his dissenting views, particularly on

sociopolitical matters, due to his deference to the senior mujtahids and

recognized marja‘ of the time, particularly Ayatollah Hosein Borujerdi (for

example, Algar 1988, 279). It does not seem to have been a coincidence,

therefore, that Khomeini’s oral and written elucidation of the mandate of the

jurisprudent views took place in early 1970 when Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim

Afell fatally ill and the directorship of the Najaf hawzah was about to be

transferred to Ayatollah Khu’i.

Given the above, the first order of examination becomes whether or not it−is discernible from his 1944 Kashf al-asrar, a rare and important work composed

at the close of the first (i.e., pre-Borujerdi) period, that Ayatollah Khomeini held

the same mandate of the jurisprudent views that he espoused later during the− − − −third period, notably in his 1971 books, Kitab al-bay‘ and Hokumat-e Eslamı.

On this question, the views of the scholars have been divided. On the one hand,

Hamid Algar (1988, 277) argued that Khomeini had clearly set forth the “main

principles of the doctrine, together with the same arguments and evidences [sic]”

that he marshaled again and in more detail in his 1970 Najaf lectures. In Iran,

Rajabi (1998, 195-203)11 and Akhvan-Kazemi (1998, 63-67) argued that−Khomeini had upheld in Kashf al-asrar the same absolute mandate of the

jurisprudent views that he later espoused in his 1971 books and his 1988

pronouncements. On the other hand, Vanessa Martin (1993, 38-39), while

arguing that since the book was not a work of feqh, his juristic positions cannot−be found therein, suggested that what Khomeini advocated for the fuqaha’ was

ORIENT84

“no more than the generally recognized legal functions” as representatives of the

Imam of the Age. Similarly, Shahrough Akhavi (1996, 235) suggested that he−did not see any clear indication in Kashf al-asrar that Khomeini espoused the

view expressed by Ahmad Naraqi more than a century earlier that the scope of− −wilayat al-faqıh extends to political authority.

One of the most fundamental premises of the mandate of the jurisprudent− −views as espoused by Khomeini is that a state with shar‘ı legitimacy (hokumat-e

−shar‘ı)—that is, a fully legitimate Islamic state—is conceivable even during the

occultation of the infallible Imam. Those who did not subscribe to this view,

among whom notably were Shaykh Murtada Ansari (1214-1281 A.H./1799-

1864) and Abu al-Qasim Khu’i (1317-1413 A.H./1899-1992), based their

rejection on the premise that such a state was among the prerogatives of the− −infallible Imam, thereby limiting the scope of wilayat al-faqıh to the

guardianship roles for certain infirm persons (Enayat 1983, 161-162; Kadivar−1998b, 106). Accordingly, the appropriate translation of the term wilayat al-

−faqıh in the context of the views espoused by Shaykh Murtada Ansari and

Ayatollah Khu’i would be the guardianship of the jurisprudent, not the mandate

of the jurisprudent.

On the aforementioned question, it is discernible that Khomeini made a−two-part argument in Kashf al-asrar. On the one hand, referring to the Qur’anic

verse “Obey God, and obey the Prophet and those with authority (uli al-amr)−among you” (al-Nisa’, 59), he asserted that God has, in this verse, ordered the

− − −establishment of the Islamic state (hokumat-e Eslamı) without dwelling on the−reasons behind this assertion (Khomeini [1944], 109). Years later in Kitab al-

bay‘, however, Khomeini discussed the same Qur’anic verse and went on to

make the following argument: for the Muslims to obey the divine ordinances

that the Prophet and the Imams reported is to obey God and not the Prophet or

the Imam, whereas to obey the Prophet and the Imam that this verse refers to is− −to obey their orders that are related to their capacity as al-walı (Khomeini 1985,

−477). In Kashf al-asrar, Khomeini then argued that uli al-amr is “someone who

will not contradict nor violate the entire divine ordinances from his first to final− −dealings” and further asserted that “his state (hokumat-e u) will be the same as

the divine state that the Prophet had” (Khomeini [1944], 111-112). To use the

terminology that Khomeini used later in his life, what is asserted here can be−summarized, as Akhvan-Kazemi (1998, 66) did, as a theory of hokumat-e

− −motlaqeh-ye elahı-ye uli al-amr, or of the Islamic state headed by uli al-amr

with the same discretional divine mandate to rule that Prophet Muhammad had.−He did not, however, clearly state that the just faqıh was entitled to this vast

85Vol. XLIV 2009


−mandate; nor did he suggest that just fuqaha’ could be considered uli al-amr, a

separate and much stronger claim that were contrary to the consensus view that

the Qur’an refers here only to the infallible Imams.12

On the other hand, Khomeini made it known that he firmly believed that−during the occultation of the infallible Imam, the fuqaha’ must direct the state.

He wrote:

− −we who say that the state and the divine mandate (hokumat va velayat)

during this time [i.e., the occultation of the infallible Imam] are with− −the fuqaha’ do not want to say that the faqıh must be king or

−minister . . . but the faqıh must have supervision over the legislative

and executive branches of the Islamic country.” (Khomeini [1944],

185, 232)

This is because “the state must be administered with the divine law, which

defines the interests of the country and the people, and this cannot be achieved− − −without clerical supervision (nezarat-e rouhanı)” (Khomeini [1944], 222). The

underlying premise here is that God has ordered the establishment of the Islamic

state, a condition that it is unreasonable to think has changed with the−occultation of the infallible Imam. Along with this rational reasoning (dalıl

−A

−‘aqlı), Khomeini also briefly mentioned four hadıths of the Imams, including−the maqbulah of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah, and presented them as the juridical bases

−of the views that the fuqaha’ are the successors of the infallible Imam and that

they have been given the mandate to rule (Khomeini [1944], 187-188).

The brief examination above of this 1944 tract makes it clear that, at the−minimum, Ayatollah Khomeini had already believed in the kind of wilayat al-

− − − − −faqıh that may appropriately be termed wilayat al-faqıh al-siyasıyah, or the

divine mandate of the jurisprudent to rule.13 In other words, it was clear that

Khomeini had already sided with Molla Ahmad Naraqi who had a century earlier

Apresented a similar state-by-the-jurisprudent argument with the term al-saltanah

−al-shar‘ıyah (Kazemi Moussavi 1985, 41-44), and not with Shaykh Murtada

Ansari, a student of Naraqi who went on to refute his teacher’s views. As noted− −above, Naraqi’s version of wilayat al-faqıh doctrine was premised on the belief

− − −that a state with shar‘ı legitimacy (hokumat-e shar‘ı) is conceivable even during

the occultation of the infallible Imam. The above examination shows that

Ayatollah Khomeini’s apparent consistency as regards this fundamental belief in− − − −wilayat al-faqıh al-siyasıyah has been inadequately emphasized by many of the

−existing Western accounts of Kashf al-asrar.14

ORIENT86

It is not clear, however, whether he had already held the view that the−qualified faqıh possessed the same vast discretional mandate as the Prophet had,

as some Iranian scholars argued. Ayatollah Khomeini called this aspect of divine− − −mandate with the term al-wilayah al-‘ammah in his 1971 Kitab al-bay‘ (1985,

−464, 483), and velayat-e motlaqeh in his 1988 pronouncements (see VF5 above).−As noted above, in Kashf al-asrar, he argued that uli al-amr possesses the same

vast discretional mandate as ruler as the Prophet had. But he did not clarify the− −relations between uli al-amr and valı-ye faqıh. It is possible, however, that he

intentionally left the matter vague in order to avoid setting off a controversy

over a Qur’anic interpretation.

Furthermore, rather than discussing the scope of the mandate of the

jurisprudent, Khomeini in this tract repeatedly played down the prospect of a−faqıh replacing a king as head of the Islamic state (Khomeini [1944], 185-187,

− −232). Khomeini did discuss an ideal monarch whom he called soltan-e ‘adel

“who does not violate the divine laws, abstain from oppression, and does not

transgress on property, life and honor of [the people]” (Khomeini [1944], 185).

But, as Algar pointed out (1988, 276-277), his acceptance of even such a

monarch was conditional—“as long as no better system can be established”

(Khomeini [1944], 186).

2. The innovation question

As noted above, Molla Ahmad Naraqi was the first Shi‘i jurisprudent to argue− − − −for wilayat al-faqıh al-siyasıyah, or the divine mandate of the jurisprudent to

− −rule. He did so in his technical fiqh work entitled Awa’id al-ayyam (Kadivar

1998a, 17-18; 94-96; Kadivar 1998b, 105; Kazemi Moussavi 1985, 40-44;

Dabashi 1989, 293-296). As Ayatollah Khomeini acknowledged it in his own−work, Naraqi had also held that all the wilayah that the Prophet and the Imams

possessed are given to the just jurisprudent as well (Khomeini 1994, 64-65, 114;

also Kazemi Moussavi 1985, 41). While both agreed many doctrinal aspects of− − − −wilayat al-faqıh al-siyasıyah,15 Molla Naraqi, in practice, never tried to

establish, nor even insisted on establishing, what Khomeini later called the

A

− − −Islamic state (al-hukumah al-Islamıyah) (see, for example, Hairi 1988, 277-

280). As noted above, Khomeini forcefully asserted that establishing the Islamic− − −state constitutes a collective obligation (al-wajib al-kifa’ı) on the part of the just

− −jurisprudents (al-fuqaha’ al-‘udul) (VF4 above).

Among the doctrinal aspects, however, there apparently was an important

development. As noted above, Ayatollah Khomeini discussed the issue of the− −divine mandate of the jurisprudent to rule, using the term al-wilayah al-‘ammah

87Vol. XLIV 2009


− −in his 1971 Kitab al-bay‘ (Khomeini 1985, 464, 483), and velayat-e motlaqeh in

his 1988 pronouncements (Khomeini 1990, 170-171, 174). This shift in−terminology has created slight confusion about what exactly the term velayat-e

−motlaqeh-ye faqıh meant. For example, one Qom-based scholar argued that−velayat-e motlaqeh only meant comprehensive, and thus not limited (muqayyad),−velayat in administering affairs of the country and that Ayatollah Khomeini,

therefore, did not break new ground (Mazinani 1998, 18-19). Others, such as

Mohsen Kadivar (1998a, 107-109) argued that motlaqeh in this context meant

“not limited in the framework of substantive divine ordinances” (‘adam-e− − − − − − −taqayyod-e chaharchub-e ahkam-e far‘ıyeh-ye elahıyeh-ye avvalıyeh wa

− −thanavıyeh).

This is a very fine point with potentially profound consequences, and

requires a separate examination.16 Yet it is possible that in the area of the− − − −discretional authority (ekhtiyarat) of the valı-ye faqıh, the doctrine of the

− −absolute mandate of the jurisprudent (velayat-e motlaqeh-ye faqıh) as espoused

by Ayatollah Khomeini in January 1988 went beyond what Naraqi had argued.

The idea that the Islamic state may suspend, if not revoke, substantive divine− − − −ordinances (ahkam-e far‘ıyeh-ye elahıyeh) (Khomeini 1990, 170-171) does

seem novel, as Kadivar argued (1998a, 24).

Conclusion

In this article, I reviewed the educational and scholarly background of Ayatollah

Khomeini, and reconstructed the constituent components of his doctrine of the− −divine mandate of the jurisprudent (wilayat al-faqıh). Then I examined his 1944

−tract, Kashf al-asrar, to determine how consistent his views were over his long

academic and political career.

My examination of the tract showed that Khomeini as a young seminary− − − −teacher had already believed in wilayat al-faqıh al-siyasıyah, or the divine

−mandate of the jurisprudent to rule. This suggests that his views on wilayat al-−faqıh most likely had solidified much earlier than most of the existing Western

studies surmised and also that they remained rather consistent throughout his

scholarly and political career. Drawing on some of the existing studies on the− − − −divergent doctrines of wilayat al-faqıh (velayat-e faqıh), I also identified one

possible innovation Ayatollah Khomeini likely added to the doctrine. These

results will likely help better discuss various implications of the doctrine as

political theory and also in the context of actual political developments in Iran

over the last fifty some years.

ORIENT88

Notes1 For recent examples, see Kadivar, 1998b, 217-392, and Mavani, 2001.2 His first political tract, this book was originally published in Tehran in 1323 A.H.S. See Ostadi,

1990, 158.3 For his early life, see Rouhani 1977; Rajabi 1998; Algar 1988; and Moin 1999.4 Khomeini married a daughter of a prominent Tehrani cleric, Mirza Mohammad Thaqafi, in 1348

A.H./1308 A.H.S./1929-30. Nearly three decades later, he became a relative of his teacher’s

family when his eldest son, Mostafa (1309-1356 A.H.S./1930-1977), married a daughter of

Morteza Ha’eri-Yazdi (d. 1406 A.H./1985-86), the eldest son of ‘Abd al-Karim Ha’eri-Yazdi, in

1335 A.H.S./1956-57. See Rouhani 1977, 31-32; Hairi-Yazdi 2001, 97.5 Khomeini thus spent the entire reign of Reza Shah (1925-1941) as a member of the Qom

houzeh—first as a talabeh and then as a young modarres.6 This five-volume work in Arabic was published successively from 1391 A.H./1971 to 1397 A.H./

1977. See Ostadi 1990, 153.7 Ostadi 1990, 158; Khomeini 1994, v-vii. This Persian tract has been published in different

editions. At least two different pre-Revolutionary editions existed, one with 208 pages (the− −edition later reprinted by Tehran’s Entesharat-e Amir-e Kabir in 1357 A.H.S./1978) and another

− − −with 184 pages (the smaller-sized one occasionally distributed under the title Nameh’ı az Emam− − − − −Musavı Kashif al-Ghita’ and printed together with his another tract entitled Jahad-e Akbar [263

− − −pages in total]). The post-Revolutionary (1994) Mo’asseseh-ye Tanzım va Nashr-e Athar-e− −Imam Khomeinı edition has 142 pages plus indices.

8 Ayatollah Khomeini had reportedly questioned the omission of these topics from the existing−Resalehs in a 1962 conversation with visiting Tehran bazaaris. See Moin 1999, 80-81.

9 His letter to President ‘Ali Khameneh’i dated 16 Dey 1366/6 January 1988, and his statement in

the meeting with Guardian Council Secretary Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi, 22 Dey 1366/13 January

1988, respectively.10 For the distinction between injunctive and declaratory ordinances (rulings), see, for example,

Sadr 2003, 55-56 (as well as the translator’s glossary, 176, 182).11 Rajabi had made the same argument in the first edition of this book published in 1992 by Iran’s

National Library. See Akhvan-Kazemi 1998, 64.12 −For example, ‘Allamah Mohammad Hosein Tabataba’i rejected the view that fuqaha’ may be

− −considered among uli al-amr in his famous Qur’anic commentaries al-Mızan (Kadivar 1998b,

72).13 − − − −In Persian, it could also be termed velayat-e hokumatı-ye faqıh. For, as summarized in VF5

−A

−above, Ayatollah Khomeini seemed to equate politics (al-siyasah) with rulership (al-hukumah)− − − − −in this context. For the term and concept velayat-e siyası-ye faqıhan, see, for example, Kadivar

1998a, 20; 1998b, 12, 105.14 The exception was, again, Algar (1988, 277).15 − − − −For example, both Naraqi and Khomeini held that the velayat-e siyası-ye faqıh is entirely

− −divinely derived (intis.abı). See Kadivar 1998a, 81, 96.16 I have discussed one possible implication, drawing on the argument made by Sa‘id Hajjarian, in

“The Secularization of a Faqih-headed Islamic Revolutionary State in Iran: Its Mechanisms,

Processes, and Prospects” (unpublished manuscript).

Bibliography−Akhavi, Shahrough 1996: “Contending Discourses in Shi‘i Law on the Doctrine of Wilayat al-

−Faqıh,” Iranian Studies 29/3-4, 229-268.− − −Akhvan-Kazemi, Bahram 1998: Qedmat va Tadavom-e Nazariyeh-ye Velayat-e Motlaqeh-ye Faqıh

− − − −az Dıdgah-e Emam Khomeinı, Tehran.

Algar, Hamid 1988: “Imam Khomeini, 1902-1962: The Pre-Revolutionary Years,” in Edmund

89Vol. XLIV 2009


Burke, III, and Ira M. Lapidus (eds.), Islam, Politics, and Social Movements, Berkeley, 263-288.

Amir Arjomand, Said 1980: “The State and Khomeini’s Islamic Order,” Iranian Studies 13/1-4,

147-164.

Calder, Norman 1982: “Accommodation and Revolution in Imami Shi‘i Jurisprudence: Khumayni

and the Classical Tradition,” Middle Eastern Studies 18/1, 3-20.

Dabashi, Hamid 1989: “Mulla Ahmad Naraqi and the Question of the Guardianship of the

Jurisconsult (Wilayat-i Faqih),” in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, and Seyyed Vali Reza

Nasr (eds.), Expectations of the Millennium: Shi‘ism in History, Albany, 288-300.

Enayat, Hamid 1983: “Iran: Khumayni’s Concept of the ‘Guardianship of the Jurisconsult,’” in

James P. Piscatori (ed.), Islam in the Political Process, Cambridge, 160-180.− − − − − − − −Forati, ‘Abdol-Vahhab 2006: Ta’rıkh-e Shefahı-ye Enqelab-e Eslamı, Vol. 2: Imam Khomeinı dar

−Tab‘ıd, Tehran.

Hairi, Abdul-Hadi 1988: “The Legitimacy of the Early Qajar Rule as Viewed by the Shi‘i

Religious Leaders,” Middle Eastern Studies 24/3, 271-286.− − − − − −Hairi-Yazdi, Mehdi 2001: Khaterat-e Mehdı-ye Ha’erı-ye Yazdı, ed. by Habib Ladjevardi,

Cambridge, MA.− − −Kadivar, Mohsen 1998a: Nazarıyeh-ha-ye Doulat dar Feqh-e Shı‘eh, Tehran.

− − −Kadivar, Mohsen 1998b: Hokumat-e Vela’ı, Tehran.

Kazemi Moussavi, Ahmad 1985: “The Establishment of the Position of Marja’iyyat-i Taqlid in the

Twelver-Shi’i Community,” Iranian Studies 18/1, 35-51.−Khomeini, [Imam] Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi- n.d. [1944]: Kashf al-asrar, n.p. [Tehran].

−Khomeini, [Imam] Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi- 1985: Kitab al-bay‘, Vol. 2, Qom.− −Khomeini, [Imam] Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi- 1990: Sahıfeh-ye Nur, Vol. 20, Tehran.

− − − − −Khomeini, [Imam] Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi- 1994: Velayat-e-Faqıh (Hokumat-e Eslamı), Tehran.− −Martin, Vanessa 1993: “Religion and State in Khumainı’s Kashf al-Asrar,” Bulletin of the School

of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 56/1, 34-45.

Mavani, Hamid 2001: “Analysis of Khomeini’s Proofs for al-Wilaya al-Mutlaqa (Comprehensive

Authority) of the Jurist,” in Linda S. Walbridge (ed.), The Most Learned of the Shi‘a: The

Institution of the Marja‘ Taqlid, Oxford and New York, 183-201.− − − − − −Mazinani, Mohammad Sadeq 1998: “Velayat-e Motlaqeh-ye Faqıh az Dıdgah-e Emam Khomeinı

− − − − −va Qara’at-ha-ye Gunagun,” Houzeh 85-86, 15-62.

Moin, Baqer 1999: Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah, New York.− −Mottahedeh, Roy P. 1995: “Wilayat al-Faqıh,” in John L. Esposito (ed.), The Oxford Excyclopedia

of the Modern Islamic World, Vol. 4, New York and Oxford, 320-322.− − − − − − − − −Ostadi, Reza 1990: “Ketab-ha va Athar-e ‘Elmı-ye Emam Khomeinı,” Kayhan-e Andısheh 29,

143-161.− − − − − −Rajabi, Mohammad Hasan 1998: Zendegınameh-ye Siyası-ye Emam Khomeinı, Tehran.

Rose, Gregory 1983: “Velayat-e Faqih and the Recovery of Islamic Identity in the Thought of

Ayatollah Khomeini,” in Nikki R. Keddie (ed.), Religion and Politics in Iran: Shi’ism from

Quietism to Revolution, New Haven, 166-188.− − − − − − − −Rouhani, Seyyed Hamid 1977: Barresı va Tahlılı az Nehzat-e Emam Khomeinı dar Iran, n.p., Dar

−al-Fekr-Dar al-‘Elm.

Sadr, Muhammad Baqir as- 2003: Lessons in Islamic Jurisprudence, tr. by Roy Parviz

Mottahedeh, Oxford.− − − −Sahebi, Mohammad Javad 1990: “Naqsh-e Emam Khomeinı dar Tadvın va Tanqıh-e Falsafeh-ye

− − − −Siyası,” Kayhan-e Andısheh 29, 130-142.

ORIENT90

− − − − − − −Va‘ez-Khorasani, Mohammad 1981: “Seirı dar Zendegı-ye ‘Elmı va Enqelabı-ye Ostad-e Shahıd− − − − − − −Morteza Motahharı,” in Abdol-Karim Sorush (ed.), Yadnameh-ye Ostad-e Shahıd Morteza

−Motahharı, Tehran, 317-380.

revisiting ayatollah khomeini’s doctrine of wilayat al

Documents